starwars_exodusfandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Conformity standards
Ship Template Stuff The main reason I've been doing things the way I have is for the sake of consistency. It makes things look more professional if everything fits the same mold no matter where you go and it makes things simpler to read for those who aren't familiar with our stats... KPH I've been using "KPH" instead of "km/h" because it reads better next to our other all-caps stats (which are meant to be all caps) such as MGLT, RU, and SBD. In particular, MGLT is what convinced me to go with KPH. The reasoning is that if the space speed is in caps, it would look more consistent to have the air speed follow suit. Crew "Twice" I completely agree that adding on "Crew" after the number of crew is repetitive. Why do it then? Because some ships list more than one simple number for crew. Take the Imperial Mark I for example. There's the crew, and then there's the actual breakdown of the crew. Other cases, like the ''Defender''-class Star Destroyer, only list a number for basic crew, and then another number for gunners. You have to identify both those things. You can't for example, do this: *354 *50 Gunners It looks incomplete. The below example reads much better... *354 Crew *50 Gunners So, because of that, I've been putting down "Crew" on ships with only one number as well, once again, to keep things consistent with the pages that list more than one item for crew numbers. Capping Words (i.e. "meters" to "Meters") Admittedly, This really isn't that necessary, but I think it looks better with the formatting of the rest of the infobox. Keeps things consistent (bet you're sick of that word by now :P). I realize Wook doesn't do this, but then Wook also doesn't cap the first letters in their article titles either ("E-wing escort starfighter" instead of "E-wing Escort Starfighter"), which isn't proper grammar if we want to get technical... Comments That should cover everything. I probably won't have a chance to reply to anything until next week, but at least you know my reasons now... --Halomek 23:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC) *Well, honestly, I believe that KPH reads really bad... I always cringe when I see that usage of abbreviation. Even if it does look more "in place" with MGLT, etc. It's just... an ugly useage of an abbreviation in my opinion. And I can see how saying something like, "300 crew, 20 skeleton" or whatever (for the sake of syntax, just pretend that's formatted right :P) is much better than, "300, 20 skeleton"... but I don't see how it is necessary to say, "300 crew" alone, even if it is more consistent. If it's just one thing being listed, then I would think that the repetitiveness would overrule consistency. The capping of words? That's just a gripe of mine. I can live with it, but to be honest, I'm not very likely to go about being a strict follower of it, due to what I'm actually used to doing and all. (Old habits die hard. So if I continue doing without caps when it's agreed to use them, I'm not being rebellious. It's just habit. :P) --Cadden Blackthorne 00:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC) **My only gripe has been with how you did it without discussing it (the rest has just been me bitching). I don't care whether it's km/h or KPH, or if we capitalize the first letter. I agree with Cadden on the crew thing, however. --Jagtai 07:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC) ***Okay, first time posting a comment, so if I've done this wrong, please forgive me. Regarding the capitalizing for KPH vs kph or kpm or whatever, I think looking at a standard source would work, like a physics textbook. I believe, and I'm probably wrong, that the proper format is kph. Obviously, I'm in China so I don't have a textbook on me. Also, regarding "meters", it's always NOT capitalized. It's just meters, kilometers, centimeters, etc. By the way, is there an easy way to convert my Balsa user page to an actual user page? Right now it's just a character entry or something. Any help please. :) --Balsa 03:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC) ****Okay, apparently there is a consensus on the crew issue. I don’t agree with it, but I’ll go along with it. I won’t add it if there’s just a single number. Also, Balsa is correct about meters never being capped (just learned that - thank you, wikipedia), so as much as it irks me to do so, I guess I’ll keep it in line with the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. Naturally this means KPH will have to fall into line as all undercase as well. Technically the right way to write “kilometers per hour” would be as “km/h”, but I’d still prefer to use “kph” instead (as it is an accepted version). --Halomek 03:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC) *****Irks you to "conform" (funny that I'm using that word here, of all places :P), irks me that it's not "correct". In the end, someone's going to get irked. :) Like I said before, on the caps issue, it's an annoyance on my end, but I could live with it. The biggest thing I've got an issue with is using KPH/kph over km/h. According to 'pedia, km/h is the widely accepted, and "correct" variation. ("The unit symbol is km/h or km·h−1; however, the colloquial abbreviations "kph" and "kmph" are sometimes also used in English-speaking countries, in analogy to mph, although these are not in accordance with international scientific standards." -Source). So, unless I'm alone, or you hold the majority opinion, on that matter... well... I'm gonna be defending that sucker. :P --Cadden Blackthorne 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ******I want to keep kph because it's closer in theme to MGLT, RU, & SBD than km/h is. Plus, since we all speak English here, everyone is going to know kph just as well as km/h, which makes it a non-issue in my eyes. So, other than you or me, everyone seems to be fairly indifferent to this particular issue... What do we do in case of a stalemate? --Halomek 23:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)